This article was posted 09/28/2012 and is most likely outdated.

Mike Holt - SBU Study Reveals Harmful Effects of CFL Bulbs to Skin
header
SBU Study Reveals Harmful Effects of CFL Bulbs to Skin

SBU Study Reveals Harmful Effects of CFL Bulbs to Skin
Research shows that energy efficient bulbs safest when placed behind additional glass cover

Image

STONY BROOK, NY, July 18, 2012 – Inspired by a European study, a team of Stony Brook University researchers looked into the potential impact of healthy human skin tissue (in vitro) being exposed to ultraviolet rays emitted from compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. The results, “The Effects of UV Emission from CFL Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes in Vitro,” were published in the June issue of the journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology.

Stony Brook researchers collected CFL bulbs purchased from different locations across Suffolk and Nassau counties, and then measured the amount of UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings. Results revealed significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied.

At Stony Brook’s Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center (AERTC), the team took the same bulbs and studied the effects of exposure on healthy human skin tissue cells, including: fibroblasts, a type of cell found in connective tissue that produces collagen; and keratinocytes, an epidermal cell that produces keratin, the key structural material in the outer layer of human skin. Tests were repeated with incandescent light bulbs of the same intensity and with the introduction of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, which are found in personal care products normally used for UV absorption.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.” Rafailovich added that incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells, with or without the presence of TiO2.

Click here to read the full article posted on the Stony Brook University Website.

footer
This newsletter was sent to 24297 Subscribers
Comments

  • Thank you for reporting this study. They compared the CFL to Incandescents. I would think the "cracks" in the CFL's are in the curves, in mfg. No study on fluorescents. Maybe that's next. I have five in my home, not under glass. And one family member has skin cancer. Really appreciate the article. I look forward to the LED technology taking off.

    violetash  October 3 2012, 8:13 pm EDT
    Reply to this comment

    • Reply from: violetash   October 3 2012, 8:23 pm EDT
    Amend; No study on Fluorescent tubes so far.
    Reply to violetash

  • Wait a minute, but aren't the light tubes used massively in commercial and office buildings the same type as the CFL bulbs?

    And what is that about titanium dioxide "enhancing" the damage? Which products use the compound? A public warning should be issued.

    So, problems arise from cracks in the coating, which means issues of quality control. I suppose a good step would be telling Consumer Reports or some other organization so they can test brands and styles, and then tell people which are the best. But being this a health issue on a potential massive scale, recommended brands should have 0% UV or, at least, safe levels. But..., what are those levels?

    Julio Trujillo  October 1 2012, 8:10 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • Hmmm. They tested compact fluorescent bulbs and concluded that they cause skin damage, but incandescent bulbs do not. Apples to oranges. I didn't see that they also tested the fluorescent tubes that have been around for years. That'd be a useful comparison.

    Walt  October 1 2012, 7:57 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

  • That's not science- that's just a tease!

    How much exposure? At what distance? I find it hard to accept that there is any UV damage, when there has never been the slightest burn or tanning effect produced by these bulbs at household levels of exposure.

    Reno Steinke  September 29 2012, 8:26 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

    • Reply from: PFalcon   October 1 2012, 8:11 am EDT
    Exceptional comment. Significant in this case probably means detectable above the margin for error; Not likely significant to health.
    Reply to PFalcon

  • How about LEDs'? Thats where those, moving toward consumer owned solar PV rooftops are going anyways... Why weren't they included in the study? They also allow you to sell even more power back to the electric company, or obtain credits.

    Ralph  September 29 2012, 1:50 am EDT
    Reply to this comment

    • Reply from: Julio Trujillo   October 1 2012, 8:35 am EDT
    That is an interesting observation; could this be a way to push people into LEDs?

    If these findings are to be taken seriously, then other reputable entities should confirm and do further studies.
    Reply to Julio Trujillo

Get notified when new comments are posted here
* Your Email:
 
        
 
Add Your Comments to this Newsletter
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter